Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNet:
"AT&T, one of the nation's largest Internet service providers, confirmed on Tuesday the company is working with the recording industry to combat illegal file sharing. At a digital music conference in Nashville, Jim Cicconi, a senior executive for AT&T told the audience that the ISP has begun issuing takedown notices to people accused of pirating music by the Recording Industry Association of America, according to one music industry insider who was present. In December, the RIAA, the lobbying group of the four largest recording companies, announced the group would no longer pursue an antipiracy strategy that focused on suing individuals, but rather would seek the help of broadband providers to stem the flow of pirated content. The RIAA said an undisclosed number of ISPs had agreed to cooperate but declined to name them. This is important because the RIAA has said that repeat offenders faced the possibility of losing service — at least temporarily — as part of the music industry's 'graduated response' plan."

considering what we've seen the RIAA due (sue people for ridiculous sums of money) this seems sensible.

The bully keeps hitting you in the face and you complain. When the bully starts to slap you, it doesn't hurt so much, so you're willing to take it. Problem is, both are wrong, and you shouldn't be allowing either in the first place.

So we start with ISPs monitoring your traffic and keeping a record of every mp3 you download. Then after takedown notices are no longer effective (or the RIAA takes the next step of their plan) you start getting a bill in the mail every month for each song you downloaded. Then you start getting targetted advertising as a third-party steps in and makes a deal with the ISP. So now they're going to try and sell you rock because the vast majority of music you download is rock. Pretty soon there's no longer any such thing as privacy between you and your ISP and the world can take a peek at your activity for a few pennies.

The bully keeps hitting you in the face and you complain. When the bully starts to slap you, it doesn't hurt so much, so you're willing to take it. Problem is, both are wrong, and you shouldn't be allowing either in the first place.

The bully just so happens to play the flute, and makes a little money by selling recordings of him playing. He's punching you in the face because you might have bought a recording, might not, but you're giving it out copies of it for free.

We can all make dumb analogies. I'm just surprised you didn't include a car in there.

I've been thinking about that. Let's say I organize my building into a single network - we buy our own fiber, run it to every house (48 of them), and then organize a shared link to the outside world. We'd be like a mini-ISP that way.

And of course we could peer with the building next door. Running that 50m of cable is not going to be much of a problem, so now it is two buildings.

In densely populated areas you could build quite significant networks this way, I would think... And it would be beautifully decentralized, the way internet was intended to be in the first place.

I can't build the infrastructure by myself, and I can't build it fast enough for my liking. That's about it. Making progress though, in the designing, in the recruiting, and in the raising awareness...

>>>RIAA is punching you in the face because you might have bought a recording, might not, but you're giving it out copies of it for free.

That's vigilante justice and it's not allowed. Removal of access violates the Constitutional right to a trial by your peers. It presumes guilt before innocence, and is therefore contrary to our basic principles. ------ Instead AT&T should be required to maintain internet connectivity until *after* RIAA has proved their case in court (i.e. you are innocent

Regulated monopolies have to follow the same rules as the government. An electric company can not arbitrarily cut-off access just because you started a catering service & burn-up a lot of electricity in your kitchen. Nor can a phone company cutoff access because you tie it up 24/7 making calls, thereby abusing the $15/month unlimited fee. Nor can an internet company. They all must follow due process of law and prove their case FIRST before a judge. After guilt has been proved, then the regulated m

The door in the face (DITF) technique is a persuasion method. Compliance with the request of concern is enhanced by first making an extremely large request that the respondent will obviously turn down. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second, more reasonable request than if this second request were made without the first, extreme request.

"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done -- an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy."

In other words, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if you assume (with no further evidence) that 'A' must inevitably lead to 'Z'. If you have evidence that supports each step of the way, it isn't a logical fallacy.

Besides, most people using the Slippery Slope argument are using a 'worst case' scenario to show what MIGHT happen, not what necessarily WILL happen. It makes sense to avoid scenarios where bad things can happen. (ie: wear your seatbelt, or if you get in an accident, you could get thrown out of the car and die. Using that argument doesn't mean you WILL get in an accident, or that you WILL die if you get in one, but rather that it is a possibility, and because of the severity of the results, it is good to avoid scenarios with such possibilities.)

I think when he says slippery slope he is not arguing the guarantee of abuse but the ramifications of the action on future actions. The ISP is acting as a legal body by serving its customers legal documents. Thusly breaking the Client-Service boundary. This can be likened to a person that felt harassed by you requesting that your telephone provider disconnect you because you "harassed" them over the phone. I for one dislike the corporate big brother that this alliance suggests.

A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.

8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.

Common sense is what we preach

It's not common sense. RIAA can get my internet access revoked on their word alone with zero proof to back up the claim? How the hell is that common sense?

It is common sense because the company providing you with internet access is free to terminate that access for any reason at all, or no reason. If they believe it benefits them to arrange some kind of 'graduated response' against copyright violation then they are free to do so.

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

I'm sure there are places where the only possible ISP is ATT but I don't think it is common. Where I am there is no DSL or cable broadband at all, but I can choose from any of several satellite providers. And if I were the type who tried to ratify my will via purchasing decisions, and I didn't like any of the satellite guys, there are probably a dozen dial up options.

Regardless, I don't think that because there are a few exceptions to what I suggested above that the freedom of a company to make the

Comparing DSL/Cable with Satellite and even dial-up is almost an insult. Its like comparing a tank, an SUV, and a moped. Very few people would consider all of those technologies as even viable. Would you take a moped into battle? Would you drive your tank to a local amusement park? Would you take your SUV on the Appalachian Trail?

Dial-up and Satellite aren't an option to someone who uses their internet connection for "hardcore gaming". You wouldn't want to be using VOIP on either of these as well.

Ok, I see your argument - companies should be free to do whatever they want and we're free to do business with however we want.

However, before we allow ATT to take these kinds of actions, shouldn't we first repeal any laws restricting who is allowed to string fiber optic cables on telephone poles, or put telephone poles up in the first place?

In most areas it is illegal to start up your own ISP (and I mean a true end-to-end solution - not just renting lines from ATT/etc which doesn't solve the problem). If that is to be the case, then it seems reasonable for society to be allowed to regulate how the monopoly providers behave.

Also - because telecom is a natural monopoly you're still going to need regulation to get companies to play nicely. That theoretical right to string your own wires is worthless if the Tier-1 providers refuse to route your traffic. Due to technical issues with routing I can even see why they might do so for semi-legitimate reasons.

The problem is that ATT wants libertarian policies when it benefits them, and a command economy where competition is concerned.

I tell you what. When you lose your only broadband option because you were downloading YOUR legally ripped MP3's from your PRIVATE ftp server, while on vacation, and they cut you off because "You were downloading music", don't complain. It is what you wanted. Just bend over and take it.

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

For better or worse internet access is usually provided by someone with a governmentally granted monopoly. In exchange for that monopoly it is usually accepted that we can regulate how they can behave. I would agree with your underlying notion if we had anything remotely approaching a free market for internet service but we alas we don't.

So we can either change that and end the granted monopolies (my preference) or we can regulate what the ISPs are allowed to do. In the latter scenario I don't happen to think they should be allowed to terminate customers based solely on the word of an outside party.

I know, it's alerady been talked about. But it bears repeating ad nauseam. Let's follow this line of thought, shall we? In my particular area, it's Comcast, ATT, or ISPs that lease their lines from ATT. Since Comcast is also in on the deal, I have no options that do not involve a deal with the RIAA. And why is that? Because almost all municipalities granted a local monopoly to a DSL and cable company, in exchange for the companies bearing some of the cost of the installation.

A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.

8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.

This is assuming that the information that lead to the take down requests came from the interception of traffic between end-points. If the RIAA enforcers are keeping track of which end-point has willfully advertised content as available, and then provided that content upon request, it absolutely can not be argued that the cited laws apply.

We are making a rather large assumption here, that the ISP's are actively monitoring streams of data looking for copyrighted material despite the many legal proscriptions

I don't believe they are snooping data. In fact they don't have to in order to detect pirated media. The nature of p2p is such that the files need to be advertised!

To use typical nomenclature, evesdropping is when:
1) Alice calls Bob (or makes a connection to Bob's server)
2) Bob answers the phone and discloses the secret meet up location (or sends it digitally over the wire)
3) Eve intercepts the information and shows up.

What's happening in this case is:
1) Bob tells the entire world that he's got the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and is going to let anyone download it.
2) Alice connects and downloads the pirated movie.
3) "Eve" connects and downloads the movie.
4) "Eve" issues a takedown notice.

Of course they might be doing waveform analysis or whatever it is they do on the wire, but I don't believe they are there yet. Illegal warrantless wiretapping is much more serious issue than just connecting to someone's p2p, which is why it's important that we don't get these confused.

This removes the RIAA's campaign from the courts, where it was starting to show embarrassing losses, and where its underhanded and possibly illegal methods were subject to scrutiny, and allows it to operate in a realm where there are few, if any, checks on its abuses.

I don't support copying music illegally, but I also don't want my ISP in the back pocket of a powerful and ruthless corporate entity that has repeatedly shown lack of restraint, bad faith, bad judgment, and a complete disregard for those it wrongfully harms.

I have rights in the courts. What rights do I have if my ISP decides to cut my service? What happens when the RIAA wrongfully accuses someone, as they have in the past?

Haha, so avoiding the 'legal' system and taking a curve around it, makes it more 'legal'?If they use the same arguably 'illegal' methods on determining their victims, this is probably even more 'illegal' than before.This just removes any 'legal' supervision and keeps all the 'illegal' parts (from what we know).

It may be noncriminal but whether it is legally remediable is another issue. The Constitution guarantees us certain rights against being deprived of any "property interest". Lawyers, lick your chops. Whether cutting off someone's internet (akin to cutting off his electricity) based on mere allegations by (or questionable Media Sentry evidence from) RIAA is deprivation of a "property interest" without compensation, due process or equal protection, or will give rise to damages will be a ripe, litigable iss

Cutting off someone's internet is NOT akin to cutting off the electricity. That is why for people who use electric heat in the winter, the electric companies WON'T turn off the electricity. Why? They could kill that former customer. No heat + winter = illness or death. The pumps that pull water from the artesian wells run on electricity. There are far more people counting on electricity to keep their food from spoiling, than there are earning their living off direct home internet access.

This, correct me if I'm wrong, is completely legal; so I would rather them pursue this vein of inquiry than through legal action.

Well, sure. The RIAA abuses the courts, fabricates data, intimidates victims and shakes them down for settlement money. Recently the justice system has been fighting back, demanding proper behavior from those pitbulls.

They found a way to punish people on suspicion of wrongdoing and avoid embarrassing court documents and judgments from leaking to the public and circumventing niggling little problems like "preponderance of evidence" (civil) and "reasonable doubt" (criminal).

No it isn't. It violates the Constitutional right to a trial by your peers. It presumes guilt before innocence, and is therefore contrary to existing law. AT&T / RIAA should be required to maintain internet connectivity until *after* they have proved their case in court, and then and only then should ISP access be canceled.

If the ISP says "we have received a complaint that on at or about you download file from in violation of copyright. Our records confirm that this appears to be correct. If you do not explain, with evidence, why this was not a copyright violation we will consider further action which may include suspension of your account" then not too bad.

If -- as seems far more likely -- the ISP says "We have received a complaint that at some unspecified time you downloaded some unspecified file, which might have been in breach of copyright, so we've suspended your account" then I'm not impressed.

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.
Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually you

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.

Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.

or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.

or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.

You could, but if your options are like mine you have:
Verizon DSL (crap-tastically slow)
Satellite (worse then DSL)
Comcast
AT&T (i don't know what they offer but I am sure they ahve something)
And I live in downtown philadelphia. I need speed I can't go below Comcast. Once I get fios (maybe 2 years it will be available) then I will be switching. But still, I am sure verizon will help the riaa too.

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.

This is probably not true since internet access has become akin to a public utility on which people's livelihoods depend. Is it OK to put Ted Telecommuter out of work because Ted Jr. can't be disciplined out of unauthorized downloading?

And how exactly do you do that for "file-sharing"? While I can argue the point that file-sharing in itself is not illegal, the RIAA has previously sought legal action for this and has found themselves losing ground in a court of law. They are in effect seeking non-legal proceedings for what they have addressed as a legal issue.

And AT&T won't check their logs to make sure you haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure the burden of innocence will be put on the customer.

Is there anyway to defend yourself from these claims? Is there no burden of proof on the RIAA's side? Will AT&T simply punish those accused?

All of your questions have answers, which respectively, are: Yes, but it will involve an expensive lawsuit; No, not at first until enough people complain or someone sues; Yes, until enough outcry forces something like a due process standard. See the insightful post by bug (#27328451) above.

I still find it amazing that ISPs go along with thi....wait...we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic. I guess we can assume that if you're shut off for 3 months for downloading music, there will be a fee greater than the bill for 3 months of service you missed to reinstate your account.

I called my friends, laughed and ignored it. But they were spot on their accusation. They had the IP, the time, the name of the file, the contents of the file. It was detailed. Unfortunately I do not have it anymore or I would scan it and post it for you guys to see.

If you are actually doing the stuff just stop for a while you will be fine.

I still find it amazing that ISPs go along with thi....wait...we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic. I guess we can assume that if you're shut off for 3 months for downloading music, there will be a fee greater than the bill for 3 months of service you missed to reinstate your account.

It took me a while to figure out what was in it for them as well. After all, this is a lot of work just to piss off your customers. But you hit it with the comparison to P2P throttling - what they want to do is get rid of their most unprofitable customers - those using the most bandwidth. One subset of people using lots of bandwidth includes people downloading music illegally. As it happens, that's a group easy to go after - but they certainly won't stop there.

If you want to see this go away, we need to push for the demise of flat-rate pricing. If the carriers were *more* money by the people using more bandwidth (for whatever reason), they'd be telling the RIAA to go pound sand.

1. Who pays your ISP for service, you or the RIAA? Is the RIAA a law enforcement agency? Who is the burden of proof on? Is there a reasonable and established standard of evidence? Is there any real way to dispute a false allegation? What happens when someones life is ruined because of this (can't work from home any longer, can't order goods online, can't communicate with friends)?

2. The RIAA has stopped suing individuals because they realize that's too many people to scare. Now they're waving a big legal st

Note that the accused is just that: the accused. Being accused of piracy is enough to get you kicked off the Internet. No trial. No jury. No judge. To AT&T and others, to be accused is to be guilty. God help us all.

If you're at a party and someone who is notorious for crashing parties and telling the host that random people (who may or may not actually be at the party) are hitting on his wife tells the host you're hitting on his wife, does he have to give you a jury trial before he throws you out?

Will it ever get to the point where they're truly hurting the "pirating" community? And when they do, will they respond to what will undoubtedly be a negative impact on music sales?
Yeah it sucks to have your internet shut down or having to switch providers, but will it really matter in the long run?

And I, for one, welcome our new telecommunications overlords. I'd like to remind them that, as a long-time member of/., I can be valuable in helping them round up violators to slave in their fiber-optic tunnels.

For the sake of argument: As a malicious copyright holding member of the public, what power does the RIAA have over an ISP that I do not? If I furnish some documents against someone I don't like to an ISP and tell them either to follow the same practice as they employ for the RIAA or face a suit themselves what's going to happen?

- Step one: Find the RIAA's ISP. They probably have a big T3 line or something.- Step two: Tape yourself singing in the shower. The worse the better.- Step three: Rename the recordings. Britney Spears - Toxic, Metallica - Until it Sleeps, etc. The more popular and highly prosecuted the better.- Step four: Copy files to a VM and install every virus-encrusted file sharing program you have on there. TRY to get caught.- Step five: Await lawsuit. Counterclaim for piracy.- Step six: Repeat three times. Three strikes, RIAA's out!... wait. I forgot that laws only really apply to people, not massive media conglomerates. Oh well, time to come up with another cunning plan...

I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself. I don't think a Judge in the world, regardless of whether they are in someones pocket or not, would agree with your stance that there is piracy, or copyright infringement occuring when the copyright holder themselves are wilfully doing the distribution.

I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself.

No they don't, they simply have to prove that your peer transferred a significant portion of the file to another peer - that is still distribution under Copyright Law, and enough of a case against you to procede to court under.

Slashdotters seem to absolutely love hiding behind technology when it comes to other peoples content. Heres a novel idea - if you don't like the copyright terms, or the licensing terms, avoid that content and find something else. Its that simple - you do not have to have the la

- Step one: Find the RIAA's ISP. They probably have a big T3 line or something.
- Step two: Tape yourself singing in the shower. The worse the better.
- Step three: Rename the recordings. Britney Spears - Toxic, Metallica - Until it Sleeps, etc. The more popular and highly prosecuted the better.
- Step four: Copy files to a VM and install every virus-encrusted file sharing program you have on there. TRY to get caught.
- Step five: Await lawsuit. Counterclaim for piracy.
- Step six: Repeat three times. Three strikes, RIAA's out!... wait. I forgot that laws only really apply to people, not massive media conglomerates. Oh well, time to come up with another cunning plan...

- Step seven: You cut a hole in the box.
- Step eight: You put your junk in that box.

When are they doing to do something about the plethora of zombie computers on their home subscriber feeds? They'll police the "illegal sharing" of content but they don't care how much spam their users generate?
Sounds a little fishy to me.

If it's delivered by snail mail, I'd consider it a form of harassment, as i've heard it mentioned here by lawyers that "notice and takedown" only applies to intermediaries such as webhosts/isp's. If it's against the terms of service cancel the service, otherwise don't worry people or get kids in trouble based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.

First the RIAA should not be able to retrieve the addresses directly from the provider. Privacy and such.Second the provider does not know what is legal and what is not. IANAL defence and such.So the RIAA can only directly ask for removal after a court order. And I mean first an official request and only later if the person repeats it, an official lawsuit.

What the RIAA can do is send a letter to the provider. That provider can then be so nice as to say that they have received this letter and if the person d

I remember, as a younger lad, playing games like Cyberpunk and Shadowrun and thinking that these future-fantasy worlds where megacorps ruled the world, competing and colluding with each other in a massive game, with governments relegated to the role of their legislative pawns was a lot of fun but far out there and obviously fictional.

Oh, how I miss my youthful days... Getting older and watching fiction become reality is not pleasant...

I'm opposed to downloading copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright holder.

Having said that, I'm extremely suspicious that AT&T's process is fair. I have questions:

1) Is this truly targeted towards copyright violators, or is this just a bandwidth management strategy? That is to say, if I download 100 Gb of Linux ISO's, will I get nailed?2) Is this is 3 strikes (accusations) and you're out policy?3) Is there any dispute resolution process or recourse for those who believe they're falsely accused? After all, identifying users by their IP addresses does yield false positives?4) If I actually did download or upload something illegally several times, will I lose my internet access? What if I still need to pay bills, etc? Losing internet access is almost like losing phone service nowadays.

I think the process would be much fairer if there was a dispute resolution process and that the ultimate punishment would be getting your connection relegated to dial-up speeds.

However, I suspect that AT&T's motives aren't entirely towards being fair to their customers.

... when you can have the ISPs act as your own personal police and be above the law? Guilty upon accusation shall be the law of the land, and there shall be neither trials nor appeals. The music industry has become its own level of authority sitting on the side of the judicial, and shall not be accountable for any of the many, many abuses of power that are sure to follow.

I see the long term results of this strategy similar to electricity and phones. Companies can not arbitrarily turn off your phone without a valid arguement that can withstand courts. This is due to many medical equipment devices requiring electricity and phone lines be available. To many people, going without the internet is as serious as going without electricity (albeit very arguably). I'm sure after a few years legislation will attempt to be passed protecting the internet connections to homes the same way. What is the RIAA and the ISPs in the RIAA's back pocket going to do then? Use the excuse of "we've always done it this way"? At some point someone is going to deem the internet a necessity in the home, and the RIAA is going to have to change their tactic or attempt to buy out the legislation.

As much as I love encryption and would like to see more bittorrent clients using it I hope you realize that it means absolutely nothing with regards to keeping RIAA from knowing you are sharing.

The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers.

Of course, this will just lead to legions of under-cover RIAA hot chicks with an unusual knack for seeking out the fat and pasty...geeks will start to think that any time a girl talks to them, it's part of an RIAA entrapment scheme and will just give up on girls all together. Soon, the chance of us reproducing in self-sustaining numbers will approach closer to zero until, one day, we're an extinct breed.

The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers.

Or proxy connections. I see a new type of BT program. In addition to connecting to a 'file tracker', it also connects to a 'proxy tracker' (both probably the same machine). Your BT program offers

Doesn't solve the problem of direct logging though. Yeah, your data transfer once the swarm is established will be hidden but everything until then (accessing the torrent portal, downloading a torrent file, transferring tracker data) is all unencrypted (on most sites). People that don't use BitTorrent and rely on other means of sharing don't have any feasible alternative other than using proxy servers which are either slow or expensive.

Fullstream encryption will never solve the issue of you and the other peer having to communicate at some point - and the moment you offer the other peer blocks, there is a good legal basis for them having a case from you.